Snakes on The Net Fail to Put Butts in the Seats

Lev13than writes "An article in The Globe & Mail discusses the disappointing performance of Snakes on a Plane. Despite extensive Internet hype and unprecedented audience involvement in the movie's development, it barely slithered into first place with a meager $13.8M weekend box office. 'The Internet stuff was just fun that people were having with it, but I don't think that necessarily meant that those people wanted to see the movie... those who had made that decision based their decision more on the traditional marketing than on all this Internet buzz.' Was all of the hype about blogger power just that — hype?"

Comments

Why Mine Wasn't

[ackthpt]

Years ago there was the viral marketing about The Blair Witch Project. I wondered what all the buzz was about and saw it. To me it was money down the drain. I didn't care for it and became a bit cynical about film pushed this way. Now if someone I knew who had similar tastes and saw a film and liked it, which I used to do, I'd give it a try.

Years ago I used to read the Detroit Free Press, which had a little grid in the back, which summarised what various critics thought of films. I learned which leaned most often my way and followed their advice. Most often we were in sync. Now I just chance it, mostly on trailers, of indie fliks. Hollywood stuff you usually get all the good bits and the whole plot in trailers.

Upon Scott Kurtz' endorsement I saw Little Miss Sunshine, which is quite the little gem.

Re:"Serenity," anyone?

[PresidentEnder]

I saw "Serenity" twice; then I went back home to my podunk little home town and showed my copy to all the web-illiterate rednecks there. Then they bought it. Know why? 'Cause it was a good movie, damnit. SoaP is a joke, only not enough people are in on it.